Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Risk Assessment for lab testing and/of shelf-life


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 jannel

jannel

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 16 posts
  • 1 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Philippines
    Philippines

Posted 07 May 2016 - 06:03 AM

Can somebody help me on how to formulate a matrix for the risk assessment of laboratory testing and shelf-life? 



#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,625 posts
  • 4929 thanks
987
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 07 May 2016 - 09:30 AM

Can somebody help me on how to formulate a matrix for the risk assessment of laboratory testing and shelf-life? 

 

Hi jannel,

 

I assume these are 2 queries.

 

I'm not sure -

 

(a) why you want to risk assess the laboratory testing with a matrix ? what sort of a matrix ?

 

(b) why you want a matrix for evaluating shelf life ? what sort of a matrix ?

 

Please inform which clauses of the BRC standard you are responding to ?


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#3 LMcC33

LMcC33

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Ireland
    Ireland

Posted 07 May 2016 - 09:49 AM

Hi Jannel,

I have something that can help you:

This is a plan for ready-to-eat cooked meat

 

Attached Files



#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,625 posts
  • 4929 thanks
987
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 07 May 2016 - 12:50 PM

Hi Jannel,

I have something that can help you:

This is a plan for ready-to-eat cooked meat

 

Hi BBun,

 

Appreciate yr input. Many thanks. And Welcome to the Forum ! :welcome:

 

As stated, this document is oriented to RTE items. Relates to testing periods of 20/30 days. Related designated shelf-lives not stated.

 

Have a few comments on micro. data.

 

It is my understanding that for UK, there are specific requirements applied to some chilled vac. packed products where designated  shelf-lives exceed 10days. Ireland no idea.

 

The Guidance Note 3 referred  is now at Revision 1 (2014).

 

Some of the micro. limits quoted are on max. “borderline” status as per HPA/UK, eg Enterobacteriaceae.  IMO such values are excessive if  regarded as indicating  satisfactory hygiene in  routine production.

Strictly a sampling scheme is required for more meaningful decisions of course.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 jannel

jannel

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 16 posts
  • 1 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Philippines
    Philippines

Posted 10 May 2016 - 02:19 AM

clause 5.6.1.3 requires that the site shall have a system for on-going shelf-life but is based on risk. I made a risk assessment for hygiene and fabrication (clause 3.4.4), the risk scoring matrix for this is somewhat easy, but for the shelf-life I'm confused. will I based the risk level on changes of the physico and microbio properties of the product and its food safety effect? 



#6 yas

yas

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 25 posts
  • 7 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 10 May 2016 - 08:32 AM

Hi Jannel,

 

I did this simple one which the auditors okayed - hope it helps (please note we are a low risk site producing dry ingredient blends)  ​

Attached Files



Thanked by 1 Member:

#7 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,625 posts
  • 4929 thanks
987
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 10 May 2016 - 09:17 AM

Hi Jannel,

 

I did this simple one which the auditors okayed - hope it helps (please note we are a low risk site producing dry ingredient blends)  ​

 

Hi yasmin,

 

Thank you for attachment.

 

i like it but the document seems to have omitted the requirement of sensory analysis in 5.6.1.3 ?.

 

I would have expected to see a cross-reference to a testing Procedure/Sampling Plan (eg No.samples/Product). Maybe stated elsewhere.

 

PS (after a re-think) - I still like the approach but I do have a couple of reservations. IMO the entries for "Severity" are actually  "Likelihoods".  It might be useful to interpret the BRC requirement as per providing  a sufficient frequency of checking (=Hazard), supported by  the stated likelihood characteristics.

 

PPS - Regardless, if the auditor was happy :thumbup:


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#8 yas

yas

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 25 posts
  • 7 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 11 May 2016 - 08:06 AM

Hi yasmin,

 

Thank you for attachment.

 

i like it but the document seems to have omitted the requirement of sensory analysis in 5.6.1.3 ?.

 

I would have expected to see a cross-reference to a testing Procedure/Sampling Plan (eg No.samples/Product). Maybe stated elsewhere.

 

PS (after a re-think) - I still like the approach but I do have a couple of reservations. IMO the entries for "Severity" are actually  "Likelihoods".  It might be useful to interpret the BRC requirement as per providing  a sufficient frequency of checking (=Hazard), supported by  the stated likelihood characteristics.

 

PPS - Regardless, if the auditor was happy :thumbup:

 

 

Hi Charles,

 

Thanks for the feedback, I will look in to it. Yes the Procedure/Sampling Plan (eg No.samples/Product) were on the same document but I removed this as it included product details..!

 

Yasmin



#9 dshapos

dshapos

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 26 posts
  • 14 thanks
4
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Buffalo, NY

Posted 16 May 2016 - 05:28 PM

We did our risk assessment of shelf life based on the BRC requirement for alternative uses.  In that assessment, we looked at shelf life as "actual" done at or beyond the calculated shelf life of the product, and then on an abuse test shelf life based on potential mis-use of the product.  For example, we have a frozen RTE dessert that is supposed to be thawed in a refrigerator, then consumed within 7 days after thawing.  We did an accelerated shelf life on the product and then an actual on one we had in storage that was near the end of the shelf life (18mos frozen) (validating the accelerated.  Both included sensory).  We then "abused" the product, thawing some at room temp, keeping others at ambient after thawing, etc., to see what changes in SL there was and the potential food safety hazards if abused.  We were able to demonstrate that the product would remain within food safety limits even beyond the stated shelf life, and were able to justify revalidating on a rotating basis annually (different varieties of RTE each year, so each variety would be retested for SL every 2-3 years). We just finished our audit on Friday and this was accepted.



Thanked by 1 Member:



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users